Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 October 7



File:John S. Wisniewski.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  16:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:John S. Wisniewski.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * According to the analysis in this discussion, the State of New Jersey does not allow derivative works. Since this is a living public figure, a free image could be made or obtained per WP:NFCC. I would suggest contacting this person's office for a freely licensed image, most politicians are willing to provide one, in my experience. Kelly  hi! 06:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read what I have added: Records, documents and information made available by the agencies of New Jersey state government or its subdivisions are the property of the people of the state of New Jersey. Therefore, the New Jersey State Library considers these items to be in the public domain according to US copyright law (see Title 17, U.S.C.). Responsibility for making legal assessment of items and securing necessary permissions rests with the individual user. This means that as this photo was published in NJ's state legislature website, it fall within that definition. 13:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have read that archived discussion, and if that is the case, we still have a fair-use doctrine that can be applied. This is not Wikipedia Commons in which we need a license that allows modification. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that per WP:NFCC we can't use a non-free image when a free one could be made or obtained. Kelly  hi! 15:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Responsibility for making legal assessment of items and securing necessary permissions rests with the individual user appears, on its face, to say that the material is not specifically PD. You may make a "fair use" assertion, but that means you would need to accept that the PD claim is invalid per prior discussion.  Note that the "fair use" claim may not work where the image is a portrait of a politician, as it has failed in other cases.  Collect (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Image-ManoirLorraineLR00090010PC S.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  16:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Image-ManoirLorraineLR00090010PC S.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Web resolution, no evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly  hi! 08:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:India.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:India.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Author name given in license box different than that of uploader. Kelly  hi! 09:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Psycho2inkslinger.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  16:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Psycho2inkslinger.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No evidence of permission. Kelly  hi! 10:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Hussein Saeed 2010.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  16:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Hussein Saeed 2010.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Copyright violation, see Special:PermanentLink/628553427. Db-f9 tag removed by for an invalid reason. Stefan2 (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's invalid, explain to me how it's possible for a 495×310 image to be upscaled to 581×403 pixels without leaving any upscaling artifacts. And once you've done that, explain why deletion of such an image is in line with "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases".  Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please explain why it has to be shown whether a 495×310 image can be upscaled to 581×403 pixels. The pixel count is completely irrelevant. The only thing which matters is the date, and this image was on that other website more than a year before it was on Wikipedia. The date in the URL indicates that the file already was there in 2013, but the image wasn't on Wikipedia until 2014. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want me to speedy-delete something as a copyright infringement, you must prove that File:Filename.jpg is derived from http://www.example.org/Filename.jpg. How is it possible for a smaller image to become bigger without leaving artifacts?  And if there are no artifacts, how is it possible that Hussein Saeed 2010.jpg is taken from the image you linked?  Editors must not tag things for speedy deletion when they obviously don't qualify.  Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The only thing which needs to be shown is that the file is a copyright violation. If the same image appears elsewhere on the Internet (in any resolution), it is obvious that the image has been copied from somewhere, either from the linked page or from some other place. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I took that image with my own camera. Of course this photo is posted elsewhere because, it wasn't just me who took that photo, we were a lot of people. And It wasn't taken in this form, I made a lot of editing on it before I posted it. And read the photo name it's called " Hussein Saeed 2010 " of course it was uploaded along time ago. --Hashima20 (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then why exactly was the file uploaded to that other website in November last year? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that the discussion is closed and the Possibly unfree template should be removed from the photo. If nobody added anything on this discussion, the template will be removed in the afternoon on 9 October. --Hashima20 (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not my business. Who ever else took it can upload it wherever, whenever he wants. I don't know why. --Hashima20 (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Rchz-flyer-ausschnitt.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Rchz-flyer-ausschnitt.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This is not a logo and is instead an image used for advertisement. The Non-free image use rationale based upon it being a logo is therefore an insufficient rationale. Gnome de plume (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've updated the license tag to non-free fair use in but the image should be deleted unless the rationale is updated. (Assuming that Company Volmax is kept, but that article would likely be deleted as an advertisement as it currently stands, in which case this image will be deleted as a non-free orphan.) Kelly  hi! 07:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is billed as an "ID photo" and therefore made by a government or international organization. Governments do not hold copyrights. Now if some other wwebsite decided to claim the copyright does that automatically make it valid?  --2601:D:2A80:DFF:CCF2:7257:CF9B:35E6 (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article this was claimed as fair use in, Company Volmax, has been deleted after its prod expired. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.